UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – Anthony

Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark
While the Sun sleeps
Henrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen
“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.
The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.
If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.
Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown – a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, China’s population doubled in this period.
But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger.

It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.
The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.
You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.
Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.
When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.
That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.
Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.
First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.
Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.
It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space.
So we have watched the Sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.
That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that “we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.
The outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.
So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.
–
Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)
Sponsored IT training links:
Interested in CISA certification? We offer complete collection of dumps questions to successfully pass NS0-163 and 642-566 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Refreshing. Now if only the Politicians were paying attention…
The main shifts in global air temperature trend seem to occur at approximately 25 to 30 years intervals when the oceans change phase. Even on shorter ENSO type interannual time scales we see a rapid and direct response in the air to ocean SST changes.
There is really not much correlation between observed climate changes and the progression of a single solar cycle which is surprising if the cosmic ray effect is at all significant.
There really doesn’t seem to be a shortage of particulates in the air in the first place.
I have difficulty with the Svensmark theory for those reasons but I am supportive of the idea generally. I just think that it is simply one of many modulating factors and not a primary driver.
I am open to persuasion on this issue and look forward to hearing the comments of others.
I have always believed we need a climate change plan A and a plan B, but all our focus has been in creating only the former. I do subscribe to the notion that the suns activity is the main driver of climate changes, either directly (surface temperatures) or indirectly (through warming of oceans etc)
I don’t know how previous solar activity (say in the MWP) is reliably calculated. If anyone can point me to a paper describing this, preferably with an accompanying graph that links the year/decade to the increased/decreased activity I would be greatful.
It would be interesting to overlay this activity over the rise and collapse of civilisations, and other less traumatic but still important events such as periods of relative feast or famine. I am sure this has been done, so again a link would be useful. I seem to remember Lamb did some work on this but I can’t remember in which of his many publications. The IPcc’s references are rather vague in this respect.
tonyb
Please get it professionally translated. I think I just had a freshman flashback.
REPLY: If somebody has a source (and funds) to do this I welcome any better translations than Google. For now this will have to do. – A
“This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable. A forecast [that] says it may be warmer or colder for 50 years, is not very useful, for science is not able to predict solar activity.”
‘Astrological Numerologists’ will have to try to help science out then. 🙂
“But no matter how it is interpreted, the natural variations in climate then penetrates more and more.”
Go Henrik!
In Japan the Democratic Party won a landslide victory at the general election on 30 August, and the to-be-prime-minister Yukio Hatoyama announced at a recent press conference that he wanted to aim at 25% curbing of CO2 emission by 2020 with respect to the level in 1990. This is quite embarassing to me, but I do now hope he just “wanted to aim” and not “promised to aim”, “by 2020” ant not during his prime ministership, and “if all the major emitting nations agree” (his words) which appears to be improbable for the moment……….
I know that the sun hours per day are measured since a long time. They have this glass balls (like the fortune teller…) and behind there is a stripe of paper. When the sun shines, the light burns a hole into the stripe of paper. I saw it in the 70ies the first time but it might exists already a long time ago.
It would be interesting to see a graph with the daily sunshine hour together with the activity of the sun.
A very mysterious mechanism indeed. And still not supported by any observation. Moreover, how is it the sun is “fading” since the 90ies and all we got is a warming? Even 20 years later? 2009 is not going to be a cold year, far from that. August and July were globally pretty hot and September seems to be setting a new record
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html
check Channel 5
REPLY: “And still not supported by any observation.”
Baloney “Flanagan”.
Svensmark cites Forbush decrease events in the op-ed piece and the results. Here’s an essay on it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/
and here
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/07/20/decreases-in-cosmic-rays-affect-athmosph
Why would you purposely misrepresent what Svensmark cites when an observation exists and was cited in the op-ed piece? There are times when I think maybe it is better that you take your opinions elsewhere, this is one of them.
Take a time out.
-A
svensmark:
One can wonder that the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the sun changed activity has no effect on the climate, but the reason is that they only include changes in solar radiation…
thats not true!
ipcc explains the warming up to 1950 with natural forces, inkl. sun aktivities!
(i m an ipcc skeptic, but we should not try to missinterpretate them…)
If only the climate of earth were so simple that major changes depended just on one factor. Unfortunately this simplistic view is wrong, and our chaotic climate depends on multiple interlinked mechanisms to keep it within the bounds of a few degrees of temperature variability we usually see.
The Svensmark theory may well be correct, but like CO2 caused AGW, I’m sure it will not turn out to be the sole mechanism. However, with Copenhagen around trhe corner, it’s good to see some publicity which shows the CO2 theory is very weak and perhaps help stop global Cap & Trade being adopted.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5597/1410
”
Changes in the global water cycle can cause major environmental and socioeconomic impacts. As the average global temperature increases, it is generally expected that the air will become drier and that evaporation from terrestrial water bodies will increase. Paradoxically, terrestrial observations over the past 50 years show the reverse. Here, we show that the decrease in evaporation is consistent with what one would expect from the observed large and widespread decreases in sunlight resulting from increasing cloud coverage and aerosol concentration.
”
So global dimming is another of the myths then?
What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models. How could they predict it, because the models cannot be fed chaotics? Because of that, it shows that ANY future prediction, whether warming or cooling, is ridiculous. And I count-in this prediction of cooling. We CANNOT do that! Why has Svensmark not picked up anything from silly predictions of the Earth frying? We don’t know what the future climate will be, so what we SHOULD be doing is putting money into adaptation of whatever comes our way. It’s bizarre of some to think that we can warm the planet, but it’s equally bizarre to make predictions that we will be cooler too. A lack of sunspots may bring cooler temps, but maybe some other interaction will raise them – so they’ll be a balance. What it all means is that we don’t know, so why make our we do – either way? The econuts are too stupid to realise this, so let’s not follow their lead. We cannot predict next week’s weather with much certainty, certainly the Met Office here in England cannot get a 3-day forecast accurate over my town (I know because I’ve been monitoring it), so we should stop thinking that the Earth will warm or cool, and save money for whatever is thrown at us. Sooner or later we’re going to have to deal with a sizeable meteorite impact. Perhaps we should worry far more about that – with its effect on weather, climate, the money markets, food distribution, and disease & starvation.
If we are sliding into another LIA then is it possible we’ll see governments paying industry to pump out as much CO2 as it can?
On the other hand, the UK’s politicians are as dumb as rocks when it comes to science so they’ll keep reducing and sequestering until we all turn to lumps of ice or take a leaf out of Cromwell’s book.
Here’s a ray of hope from Cardiff University:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/09/10/public-losing-faith-in-climate-change-scientists-find-cardiff-researchers-91466-24659733/
The number polled is really too small to be of any great use and there is one glaring statistic that just doesn’t ring true. It has to be said that the finding of only 5% of those polled feel the media is too alarmist is most probably wrong. Nearly everyone I know thinks media alarmism is not only way over the top, it’s also patronising and stupid.
Will they force Prof. Svensmark to leave Copenhagen at “Copenhagen” ?
He could meet Mitchell Taylor and Ian Plimer in Copenhagen (Louisiana) at that time.
Flanagan – ever heard of thermal inertia? That could well explain continued warming in the face of a fading sun. I’m not sure whether the numbers would add up, however.
“Barry Foster (01:03:31) :
What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models. ”
Curious, this is not what I have been told, I have always understood that natural variability can cause temporary decreases in temperature. I guess we have different sources. Perhaps you could produce a quote that states what you have said this clearly?
@Barry Foster (01:03:31) :
you are right.
but we are not able to stop climate simulations, this process has just started. off course we have many problems with that, because so many thinks are not predictable, sun, pdo, nao indizes etc. for the ozean circulations eg. we should have a better look at the arctic region. like 2007, there was a real minimum in sea icecover, but is there only more absorbtion in solar radiance? what about the heat content of an ice free part of the ozean and one sea ice covered for the month september (sun angle very low, high reflection by ozean water, almost the same as old ice and high energie flux from the ozean to the atmosphere, much “deeper” as with an ice hat).
chances in deep water circulation will be affected by such processes, eg….
dorlomin (01:13:20) :
“Barry Foster (01:03:31) :
What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models. ”
Curious, this is not what I have been told, I have always understood that natural variability can cause temporary decreases in temperature. I guess we have different sources. Perhaps you could produce a quote that states what you have said this clearly?
————————————-
You want him to produce a quote of what he just said? Doesn’t make a lot of sense. Can you produce a model that matches observations? A hypothesis that matches facts? Those are reasonable requests.
Also the underlying logic of your statement actually matches the statement by B.Foster, ie. that there is an underlying monotic trend of warming through CO2 – your point presumably being that we are just experiencing a “temporary blip” and that normal (warming) service will be resumed at some to be determined date in the future.
Let me give a helping hand here, regarding the Swedes he is refering to the war in 1658. It was so cold that the straight between Copenhagen and Malmoe froze and not only that the ice was so thick that the whole Swedish army with all their equipment marched over to Demnark, this was of course a total surprise for the Danish.
“WUWT & Flanagan: Take a time out.”
Yes, the big C (Cryosphere) is on everybody’s mind and gets some people in a foul mood. In a few week we will look back and smile, citing Henry Miller (Quiet Days in Clichy): “It was a period when C was in the air.”
“You want him to produce a quote of what he just said? ”
Sorry there is not editing function here. I would like him to produce a quote that backs up this statement: “What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models.”
Folks,
all this science is OK, but I’m afraid it’s irrelevant. One can’t defeat a paranoid religion with logic and common sense. Or argument.
The AGW is ideologically driven and politically executed religion of the green/left alliance. Unfortunately the ignorant public has a mob mentality,
the loudest megaphone wins.
Call me pessimist, I can’t see how civilisation (western) can get out of this 🙁
Graeme Rodaughan (23:47:21) :
“Refreshing. Now if only the Politicians were paying attention…”
Well our UK’s (Brown) Prime Minister’s favourite trick when someone disagrees with him, is to turn to the person next to him and start a conversation. I don’t suppose he is atypical, just an extremist.
If only it were not a forlorn hope.
……….
Other fellow: “Well, Woody Allen once said that 80% of life is just showing up.”
PM Brown: “And I think the other half is paying attention.”
“Mick (01:46:48) :
Folks,
all this science is OK, but I’m afraid it’s irrelevant. One can’t defeat a paranoid religion with logic and common sense. Or argument.
The AGW is ideologically driven and politically executed religion of the green/left alliance. Unfortunately the ignorant public has a mob mentality,
the loudest megaphone wins.
Call me pessimist, I can’t see how civilisation (western) can get out of this :(”
I can. It’s called war.
dorlomin (01:44:14) :
James Hansen’s testimony to the Senate?
Anything by Gavin Schmidt